Writing Facial/Body/Clothing Descriptions, A Study of PD James and a Few Other Literary Giants

 

Upon reading PD James’ The Children of Men, I could not resist doing a little study on facial/body/clothing descriptions, how good writers both use description to reveal the narrator’s (the observer’s) character as well as the character being observed. James writes in a literary style, so instead of poking around my science fiction, I wanted to reach further back into my education to my English major readings for the Stanford Creative Writing Program and recently gave a short workshop with a few writer friends to compare how a few masters handled physical character descriptions. One thing I notice about young writers is their reticence to give a good paragraph to describing a character, instead, the temptation is to put little bits here and there, including in quotation tags.
“George is not my REAL father,” Buddy said, furrowing his dark brow and smirking.
These facial tics in quotation tags are very tempting. Unpracticed writers often use them to do the heavy lifting of filling out character description, even thinking them economical. I would argue that one good paragraph is a better way to go at it, and ultimately more satisfying for the reader. Below will be a number of examples. First, PD James, then Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor. All the examples come from the books above.

Click if you’re looking to read a review of PD James’ The Children of Men.

PD James was a great and popular writer. She was fluent in a particularly upper crusty British style, but could also write gritty stuff (one has to when writing about murder). She also knew how to tell a great story. She used facial descriptions in The Children of Men to transport the reader into her created dystopian world, relying heavily on them to reveal character. Descriptions carried two loads in the novel.

First load carried, character description gives a visual of the character being described. A description of a new character aids the reader as he/she enters the scene and tries to make sense of person being drawn. The reader needs to see the people and the place. Second load carried, character descriptions give the reader a sense of the narrator’s personality. The reader makes judgments about a narrator’s reliability, his/her fairness or prejudices because what details are notable to one person, are not necessarily notable to another. We all know this instinctively. You and I can sit on a park bench and observe the same person for three minutes, go on to describe completely different details about that person. By far, the best way to think about this in writing is to look at how the masters do it.

I took this project on because PD James caught my attention with her colorful and interesting character descriptions. 

These are just a handful of examples. All James’ examples are from The Children of Men, the final four will be from Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor.

Theo is the narrator, also the main character in James’ novel, The Children of Men

After each example, see if you can answer the question:

  1. What do you learn about this character being described?
  2. What do you learn about Theo?

Jasper (minor character, one of Theo’s older colleagues, a mentor of sorts): He was the caricature of the popular idea of an Oxford don: high forehead, receding hairline, thin, slightly hooked nose, tight-lipped. He walked with his chin jutting forward as if confronting a strong gale, shoulders hunched, his faded gown billowing. One expected to see him pictured, high-collared as a Vanity Fair creation, holding one of his own books with slender-tipped fingers.

Sir George (minor character, Theo’s uncle and father to the current leader of Britian): But Sir George puzzled my mother. I can still hear her peevish complaint: “He doesn’t look like a baronet to me.” He was the only baronet either of us had met and I wondered what private image she was conjuring up—a pale romantic Van Dyck portrait stepping down from its frame; sulky Byronic arrogance, a red-faced swashbuckling squire, loud of voice, hard rider to hounds. But I knew what she meant; he didn’t look like a baronet to me either. Certainly he didn’t look like the owner of Woolcombe. He had a spade-shaped face, mottled red, with a small, moist mouth under the moustache which looked both ridiculous and artificial, the ruddy hair which Xan had inherited, faded to the drab colour of dried straw, and eyes which gazed over his acres with an expression of puzzled sadness. But he was a good shot—my mother would have approved of that.

Julian (major character and love interest): But at the end of the row was a figure he suddenly recognized. She was sitting motionless, her head thrown back, her eyes fixed on the rib vaulting of the roof, so that all he could see was the candle-lit curve of her neck.

Her hair, dark and luscious, a rich brown with flecks of gold, was brushed back and disciplined into a short, thick pleat. A fringe fell over a high, freckled forehead. She was light-skinned for someone so dark-haired, a honey-colored woman, long-necked with high cheekbones, wide-set eyes whose colour he couldn’t determine under strong straight brows, a long narrow nose, slightly humped, and a wide, beautifully shaped mouth. It was a pre-Raphaelite face. Rossetti would have liked to have painted her.

Old Martindale (minor character/colleague of Theo’s): who had been an English fellow on the eve of retirement when he himself was in his first year. Now he sat perfectly still, his old face uplifted, the candlelight glinting on the tears which ran down his cheeks in a stream so that the deep furrows looked as if they were hung with pearls.

The old priest at St. Frideswide (minor character): He came close and glared at Theo with fierce paranoid eyes. Theo thought that he had never seen anyone so old, the skull stretching the paper-thin, mottled skin of his face as if death couldn’t wait to claim him.

Rolf (major character, Julian’s husband): He had no doubt which one was Julian’s husband and their leader even before he came forward and, it seemed, deliberately confronted him. They stood facing each other like two adversaries weighing each other up. Neither smiled nor put out a hand.

He was dark, with a handsome, rather sulky face, the restless suspicious eyes bright and deep-set, the brows strong and straight as brush strokes accentuating the jutting cheekbones. The heavy eyelids were spiked with a few black hairs so that the lashes and eyebrows looked joined. The ears were large and prominent, the lobes pointed, pixie ears at odds with the uncompromising set of the mouth and the strong clenched jaw. It was not the face of a man at peace with himself or his world, but why should he be, missing by only a few years the distinction and privileges of being an Omega? His generation, like theirs had been observed, studied, cosseted, indulged, preserved for that moment when they would be male adults and produce the hoped-for fertile sperm. It was a generation programmed for failure, the ultimate disappointment to the parents who had bred them and the race which had invested in them so much careful nurturing and so much hope.

When he spoke his voice was higher than Theo had expected, harsh-toned and with a trace of an accent which he couldn’t identify.

Miriam (major character, the midwife): The woman was the only one to come forward and grasp Theo’s hand. She was black, probably Jamaican, and the oldest of the group, older than himself, Theo guessed, perhaps in her mid- or late fifties. Her high bush of short, tightly curled hair was dusted with white. The contrast between the black and white was so stark that the head looked powdered, giving her a look both hieratic and decorative. She was tall and gracefully built with a long, fine-featured face, the coffee-coloured face hardly lined, denying the whiteness of the hair. She was wearing trousers tucked into boots, a high-necked brown jersey and sheepskin jerkin, an elegant, almost exotic contrast to the rough serviceable country clothes of the three men. She greeted Theo with a firm handshake and a speculative, half-humorous colluding glance, as if they were already conspirators.

Gascoigne (minor character): At first sight there was nothing remarkable about the boy—he looked like a boy although he couldn’t be younger than thirty-one—whom they called Gascoigne. He was short, almost tubby, crop-haired and with a round, amiable face, wide-eyed, snub-nosed—a child’s face which had grown with age but not essentially altered since he had first looked out of his pram at a world which his air of puzzled innocence suggested he still found odd but not unfriendly.

Luke (major character, father to the child):The man called Luke, whom he remembered Julian too had described as a priest, was older than Gascoigne, probably over forty. He was tall with a pale, sensitive face and atiolated body, the large knobbled hands drooping from delicate wrists, as if in childhood he had outgrown his strength and had never managed to achieve robust adulthood. He fair hair lay like a silk fringe on the high forehead; his grey eyes were widely spaced and gentle. He looked an unlikely conspirator, his obvious frailty in stark contrast to Rolf’s dark masculinity. He gave Theo a brief smile which transformed his slightly melancholy face, but did not speak.

The old innkeeper (minor character): She was older than he expected, with a round, windburned face, gently creased like a balloon from which the air has been expelled, bright beady eyes and a small mouth, delicately shaped and once pretty but now, as he looked down on her, restlessly munching as if still relishing the after-taste of her last meal.

Carl Inglebach (minor character): He looked—was probably tired of being told so—like a benign edition of Lenin, with his domed polished head and black bright eyes. He disliked the constriction of ties and collars and the resemblance was accentuated by the fawn linen suit he always wore, beautifully tailored, high-nicked and buttoned on the left shoulder. But now he was dreadfully different. Theo had seen at first glance that he was mortally ill, perhaps even close to death. The head was a skull with a membrane of skin stretched taut over the jutting bones, the scrawny neck stuck out tortoise-like from his shirt and his mottled skin was jaundiced. Theo had seen that look before. Only the eyes were unchanged, blazing from the sockets with small pinpoints of light. But when he spoke his voice was as strong as ever. It was as if all the strength left to him was concentrated in his mind and in the voice, beautiful and resonant, which gave that mind its utterance.

Officer Rawlings (minor character): Rawlings, thick-set, a little clumsy in his movements, had a disciplined thatch of thick grey-white hair, which looked as if it had been expensively cut to emphasize the crimped waves at the side and back. His face was strong-featured with narrow eyes, so deep-set that the irises were invisible, and a long mouth with the upper lip arrow-shaped, sharp as a beak.

 

Aren’t these descriptions delicious? Some might feel PD James goes overboard, but I found myself drawn in and fascinated by the language and the visuals. Each person held a unique place in my mind as the story grew toward its climax.

Just to get a small taste of a few other masters…consider Faulkner, Joyce and Trevor

 

A Rose for Emily from Collected Stories by William Faulkner

“They rose when she entered—a small, fat woman in black, with a thin gold chain descending to her waist and vanishing into her belt, leaning on an ebony cane with a tarnished gold head. Her skeleton was small and spare; perhaps that was why what would have been merely plumpness in another was obesity in her. She looked bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water, and of that pallid hue. Her eyes, lost in the fatty ridges of her face, looked like two small pieces of coal pressed into a lump of dough as they moved from one face to another while the visitors stated their errand.”

Lo! From Collected Stories by William Faulkner

“And now the President and the Secretary sat behind the cleared table and looked at the man who stood as though framed by the opened doors through which he had entered, holding his nephew by the hand like an uncle conducting for the first time a youthful provincial kinsman into a metropolitan museum of wax figures.

Immobile, they contemplated the soft, paunchy man facing them with his soft, bland inscrutable face—the long, monk-like nose, the slumbrous lids, the flabby, café-au-lait-colored jowls above a froth of soiled lace of an elegance fifty years outmoded and vanished; the mouth was full, small, and very red. Yet somewhere behind the face’s expression of flaccid and weary disillusion, as behind the bland voice and the almost feminine mannerisms, there lurked something else: something willful, shrewd, unpredictable and despotic.”

Two Gallants, in James Joyce’s Dubliners, a short story collection.

“Corley was the son of an inspector of police and had inherited his father’s frame and gait. He walked with his hands by his sides, holding himself erect and swaying his head from side to side. His head was large, globular and oily; it sweated in all weathers; and his large round hat, set upon it sideways, looked like a bulb which had grown out of another. He always stared straight before him as if he were on parade and, when he wished to gaze after someone in the street, it was necessary for him to move his body from the hips.”

Kinkies, from William Trevor: The Collected Stories.

“In the police station the colours were harsh and ugly, not at all like the colours there’d been in Mr Belhatchet’s flat. And the faces of the desk sergeant and the policewoman were unpleasant also: the pores of their skin were large, like the cells of a honeycomb. There was something the matter with their mouths and their hands, and the uniforms they wore, and the book in front of the desk sergeant were torn and grubby, the air stank of stale cigarette smoke. The man and the woman were regarding her as skeletons might, their teeth bared at her, their fingers predatory, like animals’ claws. She hated their eyes. She couldn’t drink the tea they’d given her because it caused nausea in her stomach.”

There is no perfect way to describe a character, but one learns from the greats. In the case of Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily, one gets a sense of the character being observed, but also a certain judgment by the narrator, a disdain for Emily. And physically, the reader can “see” Emily…her age, weight and height, the fact she is (or was) a person of means.

In the story Lo, one sees the shabbily dressed visitor to the President, but he is a man not to be pitied, as the description closes with the more sinister. This story is fiction, but based in history. George Washington and his aide are the narrators. The quirky man they are describing is Native American, who is requesting a trial for his nephew for the murder of a white man on Chickasaw land. It’s an interesting story, not what you might expect. 

In Two Gallants, one sees Joyce’s fluency with language and characterization. To describe any human as having a large, oily and globular head is startling. In fact, it’s almost inhumane the way he continues to describe the hat looking like a bulb growing out of a bulb. This narrator either holds Corly in utter disdain, or the details are meant to hint to the reader that Corly is an unkempt, yet arrogant (given his tendency to “parade”) loser. 

In William Trevor’s story Kinkies, can you tell this character has been drugged? There is a sharp paranoia in her descriptions of everything and everyone she sees. Clearly, she is not well and potentially needing help, but the reader can’t imagine her receiving that help in her state of mind. 

As a writing exercise, take an image of someone you do not know…an online image is fine…and pen a paragraph about this person. Use these words to steer your description and see how different the observations flow from your pen.

Arrogant:

Grieving:

Insecure:

Cagey:

Expectant:

THE CHILDREN OF MEN, A No-Spoiler Review of the novel by PD James

If you’re a person born before 1990, you’ve probably seen the film Children of Men, based on the novel by PD James. I recommend this novel, that falls within the boundaries of science fiction, without reservations. This book is rated PG and appropriate for young adults. The rating is due to adult themes and some violence. I’m guessing it would make a great audiobook…especially if you enjoy listening to British voice actors.

The Short Review. Why read when you can watch the film instead?

  1. I recommend you do both! I loved the film which adopted the premise of the book, but the novel is unique and interesting in a different way
  2. Beautifully written
  3. Decent tension and a mystery to solve
  4. Subtle ideas about Christianity (Anglicanism in particular) that only partially made it into the film

 

The Longer Review

Phyllis Dorothy James, Baroness of Holland Park, was a much beloved writer of primarily detective novels. Her first was published in 1962. It was later in her career, in 1992, that she wrote THE CHILDREN OF MEN. While this book is not exactly a detective novel, James unrolls the story with a similar template. She tells the story from the perspective of one man, Theodore Faron. Theo, as he is mostly called in the novel, is a fifty-year old professor of History at Oxford University. More importantly, the backdrop or the world in which he is living is aging and sterile. In the story (all set in England), no one has had a child for over twenty-five years. 

The story opens with Theo’s journal entry about the violent death of the “last born” child on earth. 

Early this morning, 1 January 2021, three minutes after midnight, the last human being to be born on earth was killed in a pub brawl in a suberb of Buenos Aires, aged twenty-five years, two months and twelve days. If the first reports are to be believed, Joseph Ricardo died as he had lived. The distinction, if one can call it that, of being the last human whose birth was officially recorded, unrelated as it was to any person virtue or talent, had always been difficult for him to handle. And now he is dead. 

This book was an interesting read for me as a writer for a couple of reasons, one of which is the wobbly point of view part-way into the novel. First person journal entries in chapter 1-5. At the beginning of chapter 6, Theo grapples with his journal writing as a task in his overly-organized life that gave him no pleasure. So, in this chapter, Theo is still the primary “voice” of the story, but now telling the tale in 3rd person. In chapter 7, he’s back to a journal entry, therefore first person, and in chapter 8 and from here on out, the tale is a close 3rd POV, all from Theo’s perspective. I don’t think the average reader is disrupted by these slight shifts because Theo is still the storyteller. I noticed mainly because novice writers will sometimes shift like this accidentally and most editors would discourage these shifts. James pulls it off because of the “journaling” aspect of the beginning. I think she is using this to show Theo’s passivity. He observes and writes, but does not act. By chapter 8, he has fully made the decision to be a part of the story, not just an observer. He acts as a character in the unrolling narrative and will continue to do so until the end. 

Another aspect of James’ writing that I enjoyed were her vibrant descriptions of faces and clothing. Long descriptions seem to be Theo’s favorite way (James’ favorite way) to judge/describe character. Of course, given the descriptions are coming from Theo, they also tell the reader about him. Regardless, I found myself enthralled by some of the descriptions, their length and detail…like this description of Jasper, a minor character and one of Theo’s older colleagues. 

He was the caricature of the popular idea of an Oxford don: high forehead, receding hairline, thin, slightly hooked nose, tight-lipped. He walked with his chin jutting forward as if confronting a strong gale, shoulders hunched, his faded gown billowing. One expected to see him pictured, high-collared as a Vanity Fair creation, holding one of his own books with slender-tipped fingers.

Here is Miriam, a midwife and one the primary characters in the second half of the novel. 

The woman was the only one to come forward and grasp Theo’s hand. She was black, probably Jamaican, and the oldest of the group, older than himself, Theo guessed, perhaps in her mid- or late fifties. Her high bush of short, tightly curled hair was dusted with white. The contrast between the black and white was so stark that the head looked powdered, giving her a look both hieratic and decorative. She was tall and gracefully built with a long, fine-featured face, the coffee-coloured face hardly lined, denying the whiteness of the hair. She was wearing trousers tucked into boots, a high-necked brown jersey and sheepskin jerkin, an elegant, almost exotic contrast to the rough serviceable country clothes of the three men. She greeted Theo with a firm handshake and a speculative, half-humorous colluding glance, as if they were already conspirators.

Science fiction is not always well-written in the literary sense, so it’s a pleasure to read a book like THE CHILDREN OF MEN, with literary flair on top of a good story. 

Regarding the Anglican tidbits. I am a practicing Anglican as of 2018, so I was keying into the references. Theodore (whose name means God-lover) has a distant relationship with the faith of his people, but the reader encounters him coming more alive to this faith even as he moves toward more actions. In the world in which he is living, taking risks and acting, symbolize hope. Hope for a future is what the whole world has given up on. No science and knowledge has been able to solve the problem of humankind’s infertility. The idea of extinction and of God’s abandonment of his creation are stark in Theo’s understanding of the world. There is a beautiful moment, later in the story where a prayer is given from the Anglican book of common prayer over a dead friend. 

Theo does the reading.

At first, his voice sounded strange to his own ears, but by the time he got to the psalm the words had taken over and he spoke quietly, with confidence, seeming to know them by heart. “Lord, thou hast been our refuge: from one generation to another. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made: thou art God from everlasting, and world without end. Thou turnest man to destruction: again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: seeing that is past as a watch in the night.”

Theo has awakened to the religion of his youth. It will play a large role in how he manages the final chapters of this gripping story. 

THE FERRYMAN, A No-Spoiler Review of the Novel

Published in 2023 and still in hardback only, THE FERRYMAN, a novel by Justin Cronin, was a surprise find. My friend tipped me off. She is a serial reader, but normally reads lit fiction. She knows I read science fiction and speculative stuff. This book is science fiction and I’m not spoiling here. The first hint of a future/science fiction reality comes in the prologue. For the beginning half of the of the novel I was captured by the beauty of the writing. However, it’s always difficult to write a great ending, and THE FERRYMAN’s story/plot is complicated, very complicated and I’m not sure Cronin pulled it off.

First the Short Review: I Recommend THE FERRYMAN with Reservations

  1. Overall, lovely writing
  2. Suberb mystery and tension
  3. Interesting world-building

My Reservations:

  1. This is a long book, many words. Did it need to be this long?
  2. The last 1/3 of the book is a lot of explaining…the mysteries are not easily unwound and I’m still not sure I really get the ending

But still…it was a fun read. Here is one example of lovely writing in an early chapter:

“It came as a pleasant shock to me, how the man I’d known as a rather dry intellectual transformed himself so completely into a craftsman–a man who actually made things that the world could put to practical use Which only goes to show that people are more complicated than they let on and that even tragedy (sometimes only tragedy) can open the door to who we really are.”

This idea that tragedy opens up doors to identity is a theme that runs through the novel.

The Longer Review: 

THE FERRYMAN’s setting is the fodder for much of the good writing. Prospera, a temperate island utopia, is home to a class of people known as Prosperans. Think Brave New World. Its inhabitants not only live and eat like royalty, they never die. In this world a technology exists that transfers the consciousness of an elder individual into a new body. Much of this process is surrounded in mystery because when the transfer takes place, memories are also wiped.

The new consciousness in a new body is in theory “the same person” being reborn, but without the baggage of memory. So is it really the same person? The reader wonders. For example, the main character, Proctor Bennet, dreams, and his dreams indicate a previous life, perhaps? Mysterious, though Prosperans are not supposed to dream. Something is amiss with Proctor Bennet. 

Moreover, all is not well in Prospera. This becomes clear early in the story and drives much of the tension. There are other oddities in this world. Children with the re-inserted consciousness come from across the water on ferries at an older age, not as babies. All Prosperans have monitors inserted into their arms that measure their health and well-being. More importantly, an underclass of people perform the menial work on the island. These people have children naturally, live in a slum called the Annex, and do not seem to have access to the life-preserving technologies of the Prosperans. However, they make great art…an interesting discovery along the way, that those living in the Annex (as opposed to the Prosperans) live deeper lives, even though they are the underclass in society.

Proctor Bennet is a ferryman. He assists elders in the society who are ready to “end” their current lives. All this is done calmly, with signed contracts and quiet ceremony. When his own father is ready to board the ferry, Proctor is called and escorts his father to the ferry until his father unravels. A “scene” at the ferry is exactly what the Properans hate. Proctor’s experience around his father’s ugly departure across the sea thrusts him on a fact-finding mission. Clues emerge all around him. It’s around this section of the novel that I got the feeling there was glitch in the Matrix. 

Except, the Matrix did the explaining soooo well. Maybe, this was because the Matrix was a film and not a novel. The backstory that unfolds in THE FERRYMAN is convoluted and complicated. The layers upon layers eventually are revealed, but the revelation felt forced to me, and so much less interesting than the setup. There was also a degree of cliche that felt disappointing to me. Same old, same old villains. Same old, same old catastrophe that set the thing in motion. All this is revealed by lots of explaining and lots of people having conversations with one another. Certainly, there needed to be some of this, but I felt there was too much. The style reminded me of Asimov, who loves to put two “smart” people (usually dominant white males) in a room together talking about and therefore telling the audience what’s going on. I’m not a fan of the style. So…those are my hangups. I think many will love this book. I know folks who adore Asimov for his ideas (if not his writing), but if I were you, I would maybe wait for the paperback, or pick up the audiobook…THE FERRYMAN could be fun to enjoy on a very very long road trip. 

 

 

OKJA, Your Next Family Movie Night? My No-Spoiler Review

OKJA, directed by Bong Joon-ho, written by Joon-ho and Jon Ronson (from a story by Joon-ho) is yet another example of Korean film genius. This film is set in a speculative future (despite the film’s timestamp of 2007)…the scifi aspects of the story have to do with genetics. First, the short review.

6 Reasons OKJA Will Delight

  1. Streamable for free on Netflix, family friendly (I would rate it PG-13 for violence)
  2. Although there are Korean characters who only speak Korean (therefore, yes, you’ll have to read subtitles), much of this film is either visual narrative or the characters speak English
  3. Action-packed
  4. Funny and Heart-warming (the creature created for this film is cute and compelling)
  5. Thoughtful perspective on the food industrial complex
  6. With the child protagonist on a grand chase/adventure and with compassion at its core, this story feels like Studio Ghibli in all the best ways

Longer Review

Lately, when I look for something interesting and fun to watch, I gravitate toward Korean filmmakers. Why? They are some of the best storytellers around and Netflix is committed to working with them/putting their work out to the broadest audience. Moreover, Korean filmmakers don’t seem fixated on US/European political issues, which bore me these days. OKJA does touch on the industrial food complex…a global reality that is political. In particular, OKJA explores how meat is produced and processed for broad human consumption. But don’t let that stop you from watching this interesting and entertaining film. I think the questions that arise from the film are worth thinking about for every person on Earth, whether a vegetarian, vegan, or an omnivore. Kids watching this will also feel the implications of our “appetites”. It’s not a bad thing to help our youth understand that meat actually comes from creatures who live on this Earth with and among us. That’s a worthy conversation to have with our future leaders who will likely make choices for all of us about how we are to care for planet and creatures.

With an all-star cast, both Korean and US born actors inhabit this film. Stars like Tilda Swinton, Steven Yuen (The Walking Dead, Minari, Nope), Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine, The Batman, The Fabelmans), Yoon Je-moon (The Man Nextdoor), and Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler, Donny Darko) inhabit this universe. The protagonist, Korean actress Ahn Seo-hyun, is fantastic as the stoic caretaker of OKJA. She is the studio Ghibli-styled determined child who will not give up on her friend. This story is as much about loyalty and friendship as it is about food politics. I loved OKJA and I hope your family does too. 

 

THE LAST OF US, A No-Spoiler Review of the First 3 Episodes

THE LAST OF US, an HBO Max series is streaming now, but the release of episodes is drip…drip…The third installment arrived on Sunday (1/29/23) and now, like old fashioned tv watching, the audience waits a week, and so on. It’s an interesting choice that some streaming services have made, to hook viewers over a long period and keep them paying the monthly streaming charge. Does it work? I’ll comment more on that in the longer review. 

If you’re a gamer, you probably know that the heart of this story is based on the video game, The Last of Us, an action-adventure survival horror game franchise created by Naughty Dog and Sony Interactive Entertainment. The series is set in a post-apocalyptic United States ravaged by cannibalistic creatures infected by a mutated fungus in the genus Cordyceps. The game is rated R for violence and some sexually explicit scenes. At this point, 3 episodes in, the series is probably between a PG-13 and R rating, for violence. 

For Educators: In biology class, give the gamers among you a treat by validating their hobby and teaching a lesson at the same time. Show the first 2 episodes (that’s all you’ll need) to discuss the nature of a fungus.

Is THE LAST OF US worth watching and perhaps more importantly, would you pay for an HBO subscription for this series alone? I recommend this series, with reservations. Short and long no-spoiler reviews will explain why. 

The Short Review…Yes, watch

  1. If you love end-of-the-world zombie stories, this one has a couple of new twists to love
  2. Cool monsters and fast unlike the mostly ambling creatures in The Walking Dead 
  3. Well casted (also, actors with talent that aren’t in every other show you’ve seen)
  4. If you play this game/love this game…it’s a new and perhaps fun way to interact with the world

The Short Review…Meh…don’t watch, or perhaps it’s too early to tell

  1. Overall and so far, this story feels less compelling than The Walking Dead or even Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road, which I just finished reading. You’re better off spending your time reading or watching something else.
  2. Beware of attaching to key characters because the chances of them dying are really high (for many viewers, I realize this is a plus)
  3. In episode 3, spent a lot of time with a couple of characters who seemed peripheral to the heart of the story. If more episodes are like this one, not sure if I’ll want to keep watching
  4. Lastly, this series alone would not warrant paying for an HBO Max subscription. However, overall HBO content for science fiction, fantasy and dystopian viewing is decent. For example, you can stream DUNE Pt 1 and I loved Station Eleven, a mini-series based on the novel. Click to read my review of Station Eleven. Those are just a couple of examples of HBO’s excellent content. 

The Longer Review

The Last of Us game in numerous iterations, has received critical acclaim and has won awards, including several Game of the Year recognitions. As of January 2023, the franchise has sold over 37 million games worldwide. Strong sales and support of the series led to the franchise’s expansion into other media, including a comic book in 2013 and this television adaptation. So…there is a built-in audience for the series, THE LAST OF US.

That’s a good thing for HBO, but from game to screen…has it ever been done well? I’m not an expert on this one, but I can’t think of a really great film or series that emerged from a game. Pretty good or fun shows…like Tomb Raider…those I could cite, but great? I don’t think so. Does anyone want to counter me here? This series has potential to say something new about the post-virus world, or in this case, post-fungus world (not a spoiler by the way…scene 1 of the series shows a scientist surmising about what would happen if a certain type of fungus evolved and could take over the human brain/body.) 

In three episodes, the viewer gets a sense of one post-apocalyptic region in the US, an area around Boston. There is an allusion in episode 1 and 2 to world-wide catastrophe. There is a huge time jump between 1 and 2. The outbreak takes place in 2003 in episode 1. The rest of the series looks like it will take place 20 years later in 2023, with flashbacks to fill in the gaps here and there. The fungus shows up first in Jakarta, Indonesia…but we learn in episode 3 that the fungus probably went global simultaneously because it was in the food supply, in something like flour or sugar. That idea is unique, moveover, the zombies are weird and fast and hard to kill (bullet to the brain seems to do the job, similar to other zombie narratives). The fungus infested monsters are portrayed in a fuller way in episode 2. 

In the era of binge watching, it’s possible a series such as THE LAST OF US will draw in fresh consumers to HBO streaming, but my guess is it won’t. The buzz that drives everyone to want to watch Stranger Things, because of the “event” of binging the entire season and sharing that experience with millions of fans, that is absent from the HBO and other streaming services’ business model. FoMO associated with binge watching fuels the marketing machine for Netflix. Millions are driven to want a subscription. Some buy, maybe thinking they’ll pay for a short time, and wind up staying longer or forever. Others do pay for one month and then quit…which is better for Netflix than those who use or steal a password to get their fix. 

I am feeling a little frustrated by the drip…drip model. I don’t binge all in one day, but I like to watch the same show night after night. I hate waiting a week. It’s probable I will lose interest or get fixated on another show. I can’t be alone on that. So, if you’re a binge watcher and you think you might like this series, you might wanna wait for another couple of months so you’ll have more content. Subscribe to HBOMax in May, an you’ll have a whole lot of Game of Thrones: House of the Dragon and perhaps the first season of THE LAST OF US

DON’T WORRY DARLING, A Film Review

DON’T WORRY DARLING is a feature-length film, streamable on HBO after a limited release in theaters. This film, produced and directed by Olivia Wilde, provides a semi-new twist on an old science fiction trope. I won’t say what that trope is in the short review, however it is likely to be sniffed out by the scifi fan. It’s pretty obvious. Also, as typical with HBO productions, the sex scenes are explicit and emotionally intense. I give it an R rating because of those scenes, otherwise, it might have been a film the whole family could watch and talk about. Ah well…

Harry Styles as Jack. Frances Pugh as Alice

First, the No-Spoiler Short Review

5 Reasons DON’T WORRY DARLING is a fun watch

  1. Gorgeous highly stylized mid-century modern setting
  2. Beautiful actors
  3. The fashion and hair are worth the price of admission
  4. Eerie undertones and mystery that slowly ramp up tension
  5. Semi-cathartic ending

3 Ways DON’T WORRY DARLING missed the mark

  1. I’ve watched and read various versions of highly controlled utopias. The story trajectory of DON’T WORRY DARLING was predictable. Add a few cliches here and there…and its style begins to feel overwrought.
  2. This film tries to make a statement about marriage by catering to a type of male fantasy around men as providers and women as housewives/stay at home wives. It did not match up to others of this story type in complexity or power, like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale
  3. I wasn’t convinced in the characters themselves, that Jack (played by Harry Styles) in particular, would make the choices he makes

Longer Review (beware of spoilers)

DON’T WORRY DARLING showcases the creative vision of director, Olivia Wilde, along with writers/screenwriters Carey Van Dyke, Shane Van Dyke and Katie Silberman.

In the film, Olivia Wilde puts to the screen a utopia in a Southern California desert, a place where beautiful couples live in a 1950s-like fantasy world. Think, Leave It to Beaver, but with racy sex.

Traditional roles underpin the community’s existence. The husbands work each weekday. The wives stay home and though some cleaning and cooking is required of them, they otherwise sip cocktails, take ballet lessons, swim, sunbathe and shop. Children are mostly absent with a few exceptions, but the overall picture is one of leisure and luxury. Hardly a problem exists until one of its female members (a secondary character) goes off the rails and displays what the leader of the community deems irrational, mentally disturbed behavior. The film audience knows that this woman’s rants are the beginning of an unravelling.

The main character, Alice (Florence Pugh) witnesses the suicide of the troubled woman, Margaret, someone she had considered a friend. In trying to help Margaret after she both slits her throat and throws herself from a rooftop, Alice is commandeered and quieted into submission by men in red jumpsuits who seem to police the community. After this, she falls under the treatment of the community’s doctor, is offered meds, and given electroshock therapy. The therapy backfires and causes Alice to remember her “real life”. Everything she is experiencing in this utopia is false, a virtual reality that her husband has committed her to, for reasons that were challenging for me to understand. In theory, her husband loves her and wants this ideal utopia for them both, but by the end, he is willing to subdue her himself, forcibly. My best guess is that he was wanting to give his wife a good life but could not in reality. In real life she is a surgeon, so some of the logic breaks down here because I could not figure out (on one viewing) how he was able to afford this virtual reality without his wife working. Possibly, the “work” he is doing each day is something illegal, and his secrecy about it is a trade he makes for a virtual paradise. However, he is basically imprisoning his wife and forcing her into an identity of his making. That is evil and perhaps Wilde is trying to show via hyperbole, how this can sometimes be the case in an actual marriage. However, the lesson feels forced to me as does the story overall.

Despite that, the film did entertain and I enjoyed the setting, clothing and hair, an artistic landscape with a story that almost measured up to the visual style.

Tales of the Walking Dead: EVIE/JOE, A No-Spoiler Review

4 Reasons I recommend EVIE/JOE, The Short Review

EVIE/JOE is first installment of The Walking Dead’s anthology series: Tales of the Walking Dead. Basically all of these tales will be in short-form, focusing on different characters each time, contained in one 45ish minute episode. EVIE/JOE is set in The Walking Dead universe which means there is a lot of gore, so consider this a PG-13 or R-rated flick. It’s not for everyone! You can watch this for free on Amazon Prime and possibly YouTube TV…still figuring that out.

I loved this short, but I love zombie films/stories and maintain a special fondness for The Walking Dead version of a post-zombie reality. Why might you want to watch?

  1. Believable and likeable characters (played by actors, Olivia Munn and Terry Crews)
  2. Well-done shorts like this must be targeted in its “one thing” it tries to do well and this short succeeded in doing that
  3. A familiar world, where context needs not be explained
  4. Decent tension and a surprising twist in the end

The Longer Review

First, I’ll say a little about the short form. There are a few reasons I appreciate shorts like EVIE/JOE. One is that I find it pleasurable to see a story, beginning, middle and end in one sitting. As a kid I loved The Twilight Zone for this reason. Second, the short form forces the story-teller to focus. My family members have heard me complain many times about a number of the more recent Marvel Universe films when there are way too many characters to properly give them all meaningful story arcs with the overall effect feeling flat and superficial (and for me, unsatisfying). There are three characters in this story. Four, if you count the dog. Third, the short form draws in amazing actors who want the chance to play a different/unique character but without the huge commitment of the series actor, who has to put the rest of his/her acting career on hold while the series is ongoing. This was an issue for Andrew Lincoln (Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead).

You could say the same about “guest” directors/writers. One short attracts very interesting directors and writers. I’m assuming some of these artists are fans of TWD universe but see room to add to that universe. Their vision can be surprising and wonderful.

EVIE/JOE begins with Joe, a survivalist living alone with his beloved Doberman. When the story opens, Joe is rewatching a football game. Civilization as we know it disappeared over a year before (see the carefully placed whiteboard in the first scene). Joe lives underground and seems to have enough electricity and food to stay happy and alive, but when his dog becomes lame, he must carry him up to the ground to go the bathroom and eventually, a group of zombies attack. The pup is bitten, dies and is buried by Joe. The subsequent flashes of Joe become increasingly depressing. A new level of suffering has entered into his life. Grief around his dog’s death and the reality that there is no one and nothing to really live for pushes him to venture out of his hole and seek another survivalist, someone he had contacted at a date when communication outside his hole was possible. That is when he meets Evie.

 

Their relationship becomes the focal point and draws out the true characters of them both. Both are lonely. Both are searching. There is a question about whether or not they will trust each other and whether or not they will succeed in finding what they most hope for. Evie is a hippy, who learned how to survive. Joe is a true survivalist. Their banter is funny and revealing.

It’s pleasurable to see a new setting here as well (in regards to The Walking Dead). This is the Upper Midwest, primarily Ohio and Michigan. There is evidence of survivors and evidence of death. The zombies aren’t the primary threat, but they’re around. As the audience learns pretty quickly in The Walking Dead universe, the zombies are way less scary than the hyper-terrified humans. This story is consistent on that front.

Eventually, there is an ultimate choice…choosing sides, choosing to trust or not trust and there is a moment of facing death. EVIE/JOE will not disappoint if this is the humanity you’re looking for.

12 MONKEYS A No-Spoiler Review

My son is visiting Wisconsin and after work, we are alternatingly choosing films to watch together. Two nights ago, we watched a horror flick he chose called Hereditary, which was decent, not awesome, but was made by the same film company that produced Ex Machina(which I loved and realizing now, I have never reviewed this flick on my site…must amend).

Last night, we watched 12 MONKEYS on Amazon Prime for $3.99. This film would probably be rated PG-13 today. No sexual content really, just creepy apocalyptic tension. And wow! This is still an awesome film and has aged well. Today, I asked my GenZ kid…What do you think? Would most GenZers like this film?

He said.

Absolutely. Yes.

It’s been a while since I’ve watched 12 MONKEYS, but given my vague memory of it, I thought…might be worth the time.

One pleasure, as an older film fan, was to remember Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt remarkably in the same film. Not sure it happened in any other, but what Terry Gilliam delivered on the screen between these two, was close to perfection. This is possibly Brad Pitt’s finest acting and if you’re a fan, you’re gonna have to watch. A few images below underlie my point.

 

First, my Short Review: 4 Reasons You Want to Watch 12 MONKEYS

  1. Weird and dystopian tale, echoing Blade Runner in tone and style.
  2. One of Terry Gilliam’s masterpieces
  3. Possibly Brad Pitt’s finest acting
  4. Bruce Willis playing his iconic gritty and misunderstood character
  5. Great storytelling

Just cannot get enough of these scenes, shots of these two iconic men, culture-impacting actors for the last 30 years.

And

The Longer Review

Sometimes when you re-watch a film like 12 MONKEYS, you wonder how it’s gonna age. As an older person, you think (because you have experienced this before), was I impressed because of something slightly superficial and trite, or was this film truly great? With this flick, you need not worry. 12 MONKEYS delivers on so many levels. First, it delivers on weirdness of setting, including its gritty urban reality. My son (25yo), who has watched Blade Runner understood the dystopian aesthetic of this world. He even commented on the similarity. That, in and of itself, makes me feel I am doing my job training up my children. Second, 12 MONKEYS delivers on story. There is a clear protagonist, a vaguely enormous villain (that proves to be more personal in the final scenes) and enough mystery to keep the audience in tension. Finally, there is weirdness and surprise and the best aspects of science fiction where the perspective being put forward from one or two of the characters absolutely blows up the assumptions and values of the audience. And, if nothing else, respect these images…bizarre and gorgeous. Terry Gilliam is a genius.

 

SEVERANCE, A No Spoiler Review

6 Reasons You Want to Watch Severance

Adam Scott as Mark

  1. Two unique settings within a contained, small-story universe. (I will write more about this in the longer review)
  2. Amazing cast. Adam Scott as the stoic lead, Mark, with a supporting cast that includes Patricia Arquette, John Turturro and Christopher Walken
  3. Superb characterization and story-telling. The main character and all of the secondaries are complex, layered and quirky, adding to the slow-building tension
  4. The underlying moral and symbolic truths within the story are not yet fully baked but seem promising.
  5. This show has a slow ramp-up to gripping tension at the climax of this first season
  6. More to watch in the future because this past month, Apple approved a second season.

The Longer Review

SEVERANCE is an Apple+ production, the first season is complete, streamable now and free for subscribers.

Created by Dan Erickson and directed by Ben Stiller, SEVERANCE is not a comedy. It falls into dystopian mystery with a scifi vibe. A futuristic technology at the center of the story, allows those who work at a company called Lumon Industries, to surgically divide their memories between their work and personal lives. Those individuals are called The Severed. Most of the other tech is familiar and not so modern, for example, people still drive cars around the town.

I give this series a PG rating…it’s possible it will warrant a different rating later on, but so far the mystery is more Hitchcock than Ridley Scott. My ratings usually reflect the graphic nature of the show and not the themes which in this case are harrowing for my adult brain. Would kids enjoy the show? Probably not. You won’t see explicit gore, but you will feel tortured for these characters at the center of the story, in part because of their vulnerability, which is childlike. The value in watching it with your teen would be to discuss the ethics that emerge around the tech that is at the heart of the story.

Britt Lower as Helly B

Regarding the setting. There are two primary “worlds” in SEVERANCE that exemplify the two worlds inhabited by the employees of Lumon.

One setting is work, the Lumon Industries office building. It feels familiar upon entering, but creepily weird the deeper in you go. The interior design is sterile, with strangely vacant work spaces and long labyrinth-like hallways. The four employees the audience follows most closely work in a large white room with no windows or access to the outside world. They are forbidden to interact with employees from other areas of the building and spend their days huddled around computers doing a job that the audience sees, but doesn’t really understand. In fact, even these employees don’t fully understand what they do, how they do it and why. It’s described as something they feel. Their work is just one of many aspects of this situation that give rise to a suspicion about Lumon. Most of the workers, including Mark (Adam Scott) submit to the rules of the company. There are a few exceptions and those exceptions give rise to Mark’s suspicion about Lumon.

The second world is Mark’s town. This is a cold, dreary place. It feels like it could be Alaska or Canada and is probably unfamiliar to most of the audience. The cold and the dark and size of the town adds to the feeling of claustrophobia, something that permeates this story. Darkness also dovetails with the theme of grief. In episode 1, the audience learns that Mark’s reason for severing came about because of the death of his wife. Mark lives in a housing complex owned by Lumon where it becomes clear, he is monitored unbeknownst to him.

Mark tries to reassure Helly B. who ain’t havn’t none of it

My recommendation to watch SEVERANCE comes with the caveat that I’m still not sure where the story is going. I have viewed the first season and loved every episode. Not everyone enjoys a slow build to a gripping climax, but I do when it’s done well and SEVERANCE does it well. So, if you’re tempted to stop after episode 1 or 2, don’t. The tension ratchets up and up and mysteries become creepier as the conspiracy is partially unveiled.

In my next post, I hope to discuss summer reading which will include:

Cormac McCarthy’s THE ROAD

 

 

 

 

 

THE BATMAN, God and Justice. Warning: So Many Spoilers

Last night I had the privilege of watching Matt Reeve’s THE BATMAN. I enjoyed the film, though it was tough to watch, a tense experience. Graphic violence is implied more than shown, but evil and darkness are palpable in every scene. Not that the film isn’t a beautifully crafted story…the dingy special effects are stylized to evoke the brokenness of Gotham. They reveal a failing society in every frame. It’s pouring rain and night during most of THE BATMAN, and of those scenes shot in the day, the skies are gray.

Of course, this is a familiar setting for our comic book hero, the Dark Knight, but what is less familiar is the tone of utter hopelessness associated with that darkness. Violence plagues the city of Bruce Wayne. In the opening sequence, it is Halloween night and masked hoodlums run wild across Gotham causing mayhem, and at one point a gang of them threaten an Asian American man in a subway station, hitting too close to home for many of us. Halloween is also the night the Riddler commits his first murder.

 

The brutality of humanity is on display in THE BATMAN, begging the question: When is a society so corrupt, so evil, so far gone, there is no hope of renewal and it must be destroyed? This film earned a PG-13 rating. It’s possible a mature teen could watch this and grapple with the question posed above. It’s a hard question, but one that ought to be pondered by all of us.

The rivalry between Batman and the Riddler draws out themes of righteousness versus justice. In certain respects, both men are the same. Both are trying to root out corruption, Both are straining toward a just society. Batman roots out injustice by defending the good guys and working within the system. Though outside the formal police force, his link to Lt. Gordon cannot be denied, nor can anyone doubt his insider status as Bruce Wayne, the orphaned son of a beloved city father. The Riddler however, also an orphan, stands on the outside. He roots out evil by exposing it, by punishing via execution and making a public example of those who have betrayed justice. The Riddler’s first murder is the mayor of the city and subsequently other politicians and law enforcement, those caretakers of Gotham who have made their beds with the mob. Because of these assassinations and the attention he draws to corruption, Batman along with the audience are forced to focus on what is a massively broken system at the highest levels of the city.

The audience wonders whether ANY politicians or police are clean in Gotham, and can such evil be undone when the gatekeepers of justice have become those who perpetrate injustice? The Riddler sees no way out but total destruction.

On the narrative journey, Batman faces truths about his own father. The idealism with which he has viewed his parentage is shattered, evoking for me the psalmist’s words from Psalm 14, text lifted by the Apostle Paul and placed in his letter to the Romans.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
    there is none who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
    to see if there are any who understand,
    who seek after God.

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
    there is none who does good,
    not even one.

Why do I include this? In the film, I think Reeves is trying to make a theological point. I bend toward theological rather than philosophical because the powerful reality (loaded imagery) at the end of the film is a flood…as in Noah and the Biblical account of the destruction of evil.

In THE BATMAN, the Riddler has set up bombs that line the seawall on Gotham’s perimeter. The Riddler has determined that Gotham is irredeemable. Gotham must die, drown and be cleansed of its evil. Only then will it be reborn. A flood to destroy evil? This is as old a tale as humanity, understood within Judaism, Islam and Christianity. There comes a time when a civilization is so broken, every living thing has to be destroyed in order for evil to be rooted out. The Riddler sets himself up as God and judge. He determines that Gotham is a total loss. Total destruction is the ONLY remedy for its evil.

Batman represents another side of this argument. Don’t miss the fact that Selina (the Catwoman character wonderfully portrayed by Zöe Kravitz), tries to coax Batman to remove himself permanently from Gotham. I can’t recall her final words to Batman precisely, but they were something like…staying here and trying to save Gotham will kill you.

That comment is an homage to a redemptive sacrifice and Batman as Christ figure…sort of…The audience already knows how much life has been sapped out of the young Bruce Wayne because of his mission to avenge his father, but also to help Gotham. Batman’s motives are often mixed here. Interestingly, this Batman, the Reeves’ Batman grows. He realizes that vengeance is not the full story of how he must respond to evil. To truly honor his dead father and mother, he must do more. He must minister good to the people of Gotham. Two images of Batman in the final scenes make my point. One is him diving into the abyss, lighting his flare and leading innocent people by hand, out of the flood, out of judgment. The other is him helping a wounded girl on a stretcher and holding her hand as she seeks his assurance and is flown away to safety, to healing. Reeves connects the hero, the savior, to humanity with that touch. Redemption in this case is a touch that is gentle and personal, the opposite of violence. Batmas has crossed over from vengeance to love.

The Russia Ukrainian War is raging as I write. Yesterday, Russian planes targeted a shelter in Mariupol, a place holding hundreds of children and women. On the ground on either side of this structure, the Ukrainians had written in Russian the words “children” in very large script, large enough to see from the air. How does one grapple with the bombing of this place, with the destruction of so many innocents? (The number of dead is still undetermined…I will correct this when the fog of war has dissipated.)

Update: on March 25, it was believe that 300 had died in the bombing. In early May, after a thorough AP investigation, it was revealed that 600 likely died in Mariupol theater airstrike. 

 

 

So, I end with this image, Jesus of Sinai, Pantocrator, an icon from the the 6th century. For Christians of the 6th century, most of whom were illiterate, icons like this were essential to their faith because embedded within each icon are theological truths. For them, looking at an icon was like reading a holy text. With Jesus of Sinai, notice the weird lighting on his face, one side darker and one side lighter. That is intentional. Why? The post-modern viewer might not discern what his face represents but to early Christians, they represent two sides of the creator as God looks out over humanity. If you put up your hand and cover one side of the Messiah’s face, you see a bright and compassionate mouth and eye. When you cover the other side, you see a darker eye, an angry glare. The iconographer and the theologians of that time understood that both are sides of God and both are legitimate responses to evil. The story as laid out in the Bible is of God grappling daily with a society gone wrong. On one hand, he is merciful and forgiving, on the other, he is vengeful and ready to punish, to eradicate evil.

Current people of faith, people like me, struggle with that darker view of God, but we might do well to ponder it. Noah and the flood tell the story of God as do Jesus and the cross. And here we see the author of the new Batman film exploring both reactions to evil, but favoring mercy in the end.

We live in a complicated world, but some truths/questions find their way into our art, even if that art is embodied by a comic book character.

Kudos to Reeves for attempting something really big in his portrayal of THE BATMAN.